Hello Friends,
This last Tuesday, April 12th, the Individual’s Right to Privacy and Safety in Public Accommodations Act was heard in the Civil Law Committee. During this hearing, several facts became evident from the public testimony. I have outlined these points below.
Legal testimony made it clear that at a state and federal level there is NO legislation or court rulings that require businesses or schools to permit the use of public facilities (such as showers, locker rooms, or restrooms) by individuals of the opposite sex.
In fact, the existing precedent is quite the opposite. There are numerous federal and state rulings that clearly protect the constitutional right of privacy and safety for all Minnesotan's, regardless of age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
There is NO legal basis to suggest that requiring separate public facilities based on biological sex is discrimination. Instead, well-defined legal decisions, and statutes requiring the separate use of public facilities based on biological sex, outline a constitutional right to privacy and public safety (see MN Supreme Court decision: Goins v West Group).
The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) is promoting "gender inclusive" policies to school boards using a false narrative in dealing with schools when they claim that there are federal and state laws or legal decisions that require the adoption of such a policy. OutFront MN, in conjunction with MDE, is promoting a "gender fluidity" curriculum to public elementary schools, even at the kindergarten level, that instructs children that they must decide whether they identify as a boy or a girl. Experts opposing this curriculum claim that it is a form of child abuse to confuse children by promoting this false choice. Also, teachers are being instructed in their continuing education classes to refer to children in gender-neutral terms, such as "friends" or "children" instead of boys and girls.
This bill ensures the privacy and safety of all Minnesotans, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or age, based on the only objective measure we have: biological sex. It is a matter of human rights, and I believe this clarification in Minnesota’s Human Rights Act statutes will benefit all citizens. Thank you to everyone who has contacted me in support of this legislation. Your encouragement is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Glenn